Internet Thread:11-4-07 Verizon defines "Unlimited" 5 GB cap, Max 200 kbps

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
The Internet has been declared by the U.S. Government as something for the Rich only.

I'm sure I will not be able to afford it eventually as the rates continue to skyrocket.

Of course this will make many on here very happy

Various articles on the FCC decision:

FCC unplugs states' rules on 'naked' DSL

FCC Officially Says No To Going Naked

"The FCC ruling makes broadband an extension of phone service, rather than the reverse. It ties the data applications of the future to the anchor of the public switched telephone network."

Providers of voice over Internet Protocol software--which lets an Internet connection serve as a telephone line--will also feel some pain, for the same reason as cord-cutters.

VoIP calls are meant to replace phone lines sold by the Bells; and while they're possible with a dial-up connection, most VoIP operators require that users have a broadband connection to make full use of their offerings.

As a result of the FCC ruling, some VoIPers must get DSL and a local phone line from a Bell

==========================================

I'll put this in english for the Technology challenged.

Voice and old fashioned Switching is not needed for DSL to work. Period.

What this FCC decision says os that the people of the U.S. must purchase Voice service in order to get DSL.

Just another example of the U.S. going backwards in Technology for the almighty dollar and the Corporations that own the U.S. Government.

This sickens me on so many levels. I had a personal hand in helping DSL Technology come to life. Back in 1996 I actually worked with BellSouth Engineers in the Birmingham Research faciltity for BellSouth on the DSL. I worked on the Alacatel DSL Modem which became the worldwide standard for DSL which BellSouth rolled out in late 1997.

I personally knew the main Lobbyist for BellSouth.

Ironically I now live in the State of the BellSouth State President that actually came out and said for the Company that it is "not Engineeringly possible to have DSL on a line without Voice service".

That is 110% bullsh1t and unfortunately this FCC decision essentially makes this falsehood into U.S. policy.

So sad for the U.S. :(
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
This is dumb. That's like saying saying you have to have cable tv to have cable internet.
 

alent1234

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2002
3,915
0
0
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
2-25-2005 NYC Low Income Broadband Plan

Housing units get free, or $10/month broadband

The New York City Council has adopted (press release) a new resolution aimed at getting low-cost (or free) broadband service into the city's housing projects. As part of the plan, anyone building public housing for those making less than 80% of the median area income, must provide a broadband connection in the living room of each unit either for free, or at a cost of less than $10 a month.
==================================================
Hmmm, maybe it may not be so bad to have $6hr Wally World job since getting Free Broadband.

Only problem, there are no walmarts in NYC.

They're trying their damndest to get in there though. Luckily, New Yorkers are fighting. But alas, Wal-Mart will probably win out.


too bad it's not going to happen

i would have been the first one to shop there
 

alent1234

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2002
3,915
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
The Internet has been declared by the U.S. Government as something for the Rich only.

I'm sure I will not be able to afford it eventually as the rates continue to skyrocket.

Of course this will make many on here very happy

Various articles on the FCC decision:

FCC unplugs states' rules on 'naked' DSL

FCC Officially Says No To Going Naked

"The FCC ruling makes broadband an extension of phone service, rather than the reverse. It ties the data applications of the future to the anchor of the public switched telephone network."

Providers of voice over Internet Protocol software--which lets an Internet connection serve as a telephone line--will also feel some pain, for the same reason as cord-cutters.

VoIP calls are meant to replace phone lines sold by the Bells; and while they're possible with a dial-up connection, most VoIP operators require that users have a broadband connection to make full use of their offerings.

As a result of the FCC ruling, some VoIPers must get DSL and a local phone line from a Bell

==========================================

I'll put this in english for the Technology challenged.

Voice and old fashioned Switching is not needed for DSL to work. Period.

What this FCC decision says os that the people of the U.S. must purchase Voice service in order to get DSL.

Just another example of the U.S. going backwards in Technology for the almighty dollar and the Corporations that own the U.S. Government.

This sickens me on so many levels. I had a personal hand in helping DSL Technology come to life. Back in 1996 I actually worked with BellSouth Engineers in the Birmingham Research faciltity for BellSouth on the DSL. I worked on the Alacatel DSL Modem which became the worldwide standard for DSL which BellSouth rolled out in late 1997.

I personally knew the main Lobbyist for BellSouth.

Ironically I now live in the State of the BellSouth State President that actually came out and said for the Company that it is "not Engineeringly possible to have DSL on a line without Voice service".

That is 110% bullsh1t and unfortunately this FCC decision essentially makes this falsehood into U.S. policy.

So sad for the U.S. :(


you can always get cable internet which is faster than DSL anyway
 

sapiens74

Platinum Member
Jan 14, 2004
2,162
0
0
This is actually not a bad thing

If you read the article the only ruling was against the states forcing the Phone companies to adhere to certain rules state by state. This can cause a confusing mess.

I dropped my phone company recently and went VOIP.

I'll never go back
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: sapiens74
This is actually not a bad thing

If you read the article the only ruling was against the states forcing the Phone companies to adhere to certain rules state by state. This can cause a confusing mess.

I dropped my phone company recently and went VOIP.

I'll never go back

I'm in the process of doing that right now. Bye Bye Qwest! :D

CsG
 

ciba

Senior member
Apr 27, 2004
812
0
71
I hope Vonage challenges this as tying. I have mixed feelings about linking DSL to phone service, but it's not a big deal in my area. We get better service through Comcast than Qwest provides.
 

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: bamacre
This is dumb. That's like saying saying you have to have cable tv to have cable internet.

OMG :shocked: , someone in here actually understands :thumbsup:

No, it's not. It should be trivially obvious that any channel that has both baseband and bandpass transmission can support both simultaneously. The ruling was not about technical merits of the case at all. It has to deal with historically regulated markets and government control over such systems.
 

sapiens74

Platinum Member
Jan 14, 2004
2,162
0
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: sapiens74
This is actually not a bad thing

If you read the article the only ruling was against the states forcing the Phone companies to adhere to certain rules state by state. This can cause a confusing mess.

I dropped my phone company recently and went VOIP.

I'll never go back

I'm in the process of doing that right now. Bye Bye Qwest! :D

CsG



I got mine through Timer Warner Cable here in Honolulu, and they are top notch. They give me severe discounts for all my services being packaged and my phone is pure digital VOIP with every option for 39.95

Add to that they ported my number, i use my same phone lines and I got a modem that does close to 6mb down
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: sapiens74
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: sapiens74
This is actually not a bad thing

If you read the article the only ruling was against the states forcing the Phone companies to adhere to certain rules state by state. This can cause a confusing mess.

I dropped my phone company recently and went VOIP.

I'll never go back

I'm in the process of doing that right now. Bye Bye Qwest! :D

CsG



I got mine through Timer Warner Cable here in Honolulu, and they are top notch. They give me severe discounts for all my services being packaged and my phone is pure digital VOIP with every option for 39.95

Add to that they ported my number, i use my same phone lines and I got a modem that does close to 6mb down

You are not going to be happy when you will be forced to purchase Bell dial up and 911 then.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: sapiens74
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: sapiens74
This is actually not a bad thing

If you read the article the only ruling was against the states forcing the Phone companies to adhere to certain rules state by state. This can cause a confusing mess.

I dropped my phone company recently and went VOIP.

I'll never go back

I'm in the process of doing that right now. Bye Bye Qwest! :D

CsG



I got mine through Timer Warner Cable here in Honolulu, and they are top notch. They give me severe discounts for all my services being packaged and my phone is pure digital VOIP with every option for 39.95

Add to that they ported my number, i use my same phone lines and I got a modem that does close to 6mb down

You are not going to be happy when you will be forced to purchase Bell dial up and 911 then.

Here is some quotes from BBR folks:

#10 country in broadband ...

... on our way to the bottom, thanks to our government.

Best Government money can buy!!

Right here in the good old US of A....

This is sad..

While other countries are getting 100 mbit connections, japan working on gbps connections, we're still stuck with 1.5 mbit DSL.

You use DSL, you're forced to buy phone service and usually(not always) have a slower downstream than cable. If you get cable, you have companies such as Comcast who'll send abuse letters, and OOL who'll cap or throttle you if you dare use your connection.

In terms of broadband, we are so backwards it's depressing.


 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: sapiens74
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: sapiens74
This is actually not a bad thing

If you read the article the only ruling was against the states forcing the Phone companies to adhere to certain rules state by state. This can cause a confusing mess.

I dropped my phone company recently and went VOIP.

I'll never go back

I'm in the process of doing that right now. Bye Bye Qwest! :D

CsG



I got mine through Timer Warner Cable here in Honolulu, and they are top notch. They give me severe discounts for all my services being packaged and my phone is pure digital VOIP with every option for 39.95

Add to that they ported my number, i use my same phone lines and I got a modem that does close to 6mb down

You are not going to be happy when you will be forced to purchase Bell dial up and 911 then.

I have 911 service with Vonage. Also, the line that comes to the side of my house still has 911 service even though there is no number attached(according to the qwest people I've talked to).

CsG
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: sapiens74
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: sapiens74
This is actually not a bad thing

If you read the article the only ruling was against the states forcing the Phone companies to adhere to certain rules state by state. This can cause a confusing mess.

I dropped my phone company recently and went VOIP.

I'll never go back

I'm in the process of doing that right now. Bye Bye Qwest! :D

CsG



I got mine through Timer Warner Cable here in Honolulu, and they are top notch. They give me severe discounts for all my services being packaged and my phone is pure digital VOIP with every option for 39.95

Add to that they ported my number, i use my same phone lines and I got a modem that does close to 6mb down

You are not going to be happy when you will be forced to purchase Bell dial up and 911 then.

I have 911 service with Vonage. Also, the line that comes to the side of my house still has 911 service even though there is no number attached(according to the qwest people I've talked to).

CsG

There is still dial tone on the POTS line you disconnected???

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Well it has finally made it to the top court in the world.

Will the USSC put the nail in the Technology coffin of the U.S. and the world???


3-29-2005Supreme Court to Weigh in on File-Sharing

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments Tuesday on file-sharing technology. How the justices rule could redefine how consumers can watch television shows and films and listen to songs that increasingly are delivered in digital formats.

File-sharing supporters say a ruling against the software companies could effectively give the entertainment industry a legal veto over up-and-coming gadgets; they fear the threat of expensive lawsuits could hamper development of new devices.

Entertainment companies want the court to let them sue the manufacturers of file-sharing software that allows computer users to download music and movies from each other's computers. The companies say such downloads violate copyright protections and amount to stealing.

The trial court and appeals court based their decisions on the 1984 Supreme Court "Betamax" case. The justices ruled Sony Corp. couldn't be sued for copyright infringement if some customers used their VCRs to make illegal copies of movies.

The case is Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster, 04-480.


 

Chadder007

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,560
0
0
Im with McOwen on this one....this decision could be detremental to technology concerning any kind of data distrubution/networking.
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: Chadder007
Im with McOwen on this one....this decision could be detremental to technology concerning any kind of data distrubution/networking.

It could also start to invalidate the beta max case - more removal of "fair use" rights.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: Chadder007
Im with McOwen on this one....this decision could be detremental to technology concerning any kind of data distrubution/networking.

It could also start to invalidate the beta max case - more removal of "fair use" rights.

Demonstration pics from outside the Courthouse:

3-29-2005 RIAA Keep Your Hands Off My Ipod

Thou Shalt Not Steal - God

Feed A Musician - Shut Down P2P

Supreme Court justices questioned on Tuesday whether the recording industry's attempts to shut down online file-sharing networks would deter inventors from developing new products like Apple's iPod music player.

But the justices also suggested that peer-to-peer networks could be held accountable for copyright infringement because they attracted users by telling them that they could copy music and movies for free.
 

CountZero

Golden Member
Jul 10, 2001
1,796
36
86
I don't get it, how could the USSC possible rule against it?

I mean bit torrent for example is used by Blizzard to distribute patches for WoW, its a perfectly legal use of the technology. To turn around and say its illegal is just plain bizzare given the number of items available that could be used to perform crimes.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: CountZero
I don't get it, how could the USSC possible rule against it?

I mean bit torrent for example is used by Blizzard to distribute patches for WoW, its a perfectly legal use of the technology. To turn around and say its illegal is just plain bizzare given the number of items available that could be used to perform crimes.

Will they blame the trigger or the finger???

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
While we await the decision of the USSC on P2P there are many other INternet/Telecom Issues.

The Justice Dept is now investigating the "Exclusive" ISP deals made between Cox and Qwest and developers.

Cox, Qwest and the developers insist Homeowners can get competing ISP services but because the deal is "built-in" to the Homeowner Association fees that means that a Homeowner that wants and gets a competing ISP would have to pay twice for ISP service. They would have to pay for the ISP that they do not have anyway as it is part of the Homeowner Association dues fee.

Isn't the United States Of Corporations just ducky???

About time the citizens of this Country fight back, one battle at a time.

4-21-2005 Cox, Qwest under scrutiny for anti-trust violations by Justice Dept

The Justice Department would be looking into anti-trust violations that prevent or reduce competition.

Under typical preferred-provider arrangements, a builder may give a telecommunications company, for a fee, exclusive access to model homes and builder newsletters and brochures.

Qwest spokesman Jeff Mirasola said such arrangements have been in effect in Arizona since 1996 and do not prevent other telecom firms from selling products to homeowners.

What may upset homeowners, however, is if part of their homeowners' association (HOA) dues go to pay for telephone or Internet service, they would have to pay twice if they chose another provider.

What drew the complaint from Accipiter, Mirasola said, is that for the 17,000-unit Vistancia development developed by a subsidiary of Sunbelt Holdings in the city of Peoria, the city gave the developer control over the utility rights of way.

Exclusive control over a right of way, Mirasola said, is not a typical preferred-provider arrangement.

Accipiter or another competitor reportedly would have had to pay a $1 million fee to gain access.

Cox reportedly is under investigation by Arizona Sen. John McCain and the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

The predecessor to Qwest, U.S. West, pioneered the use of preferred-provider arrangements in 1996, when it arranged with builder DMB Associates to put high-speed Internet access into all homes in the high-end DCRanch in Scottsdale, Mirasola said.

At that time, homebuyers were waiting months to get telephone service.

Mirasola said that by Federal Communications Commission rules, Qwest cannot exclude other providers of telephone service from its network, but that Cox, which started out as a cable television company before diversifying, may exclude other telecom firms from its network.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
This is very interesting.

I knew the Internet would be the Catalyst for Revolution II in the U.S.

The souce or the "Hot-Spot" is the part that catches me off gaurd.

The People Vs The Corporations is starting.

It has started with the Heads of State of Major Cities (which represent the people) Vs The Corporations that in turn own and pull the strings of Politicians.

The only unknown element is the leap from the echelon to the little people actually rioting and bloodshed beginning but the ingredients are there.

The Title below is misleading.

The "backlash" is not from the people, it is from the Corporations/Politician side:

5-3-2005 Cities Face Backlash As They Plan Municipal Wireless Services

A growing number of cities plan to offer wireless Internet access as a municipal service. But as those plans spread, a backlash appears to be forming.

More than 50 U.S. cities have set up or plan to install wireless broadband networks. Minneapolis is the latest to join the list.

A number of think tanks oppose such moves. And some state lawmakers look to ban cities from going into the wireless business.

Critics say city wireless networks waste tax money. The goal of city networks -- low-cost broadband Internet access for all -- is noble. But business, not cities, should meet that goal, they say.

Advocates say city-owned wireless is needed, since private services don't provide adequate access at fair rates.

And the backlash against municipal plans was spurred by corporate wireless providers, they say, not individuals.

"This isn't a grass-roots backlash," said Ron Sege, chief executive of wireless gear firm Tropos Networks, which supports municipal wireless plans. "This is an organized campaign of disinformation."

Lawmakers in 10 states have bills to limit city-built wireless networks. That's created headaches for a number of cities.

Sege says there's a real need for government to push broadband on its own.

About 22 million U.S. households don't have access to broadband service.
Current providers won't service many of those areas because it's not economical.

Owensboro, Ky., with a population of 54,000, faced that problem. Local provider BellSouth didn't have broadband widely available.

The city's utility had extra space on its fiber telecom network. So it began connecting to customers via wireless back in 2001.

The utility offers broadband to homes starting at $25 a month and business starting at $50.

The utility is separate from the city, though. So it used its own money, not tax funds.
 

dannybin1742

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2002
2,335
0
0
this is happening here in iowa

you see adds all the time on cable tv about how it will be a waste of money and yada yada yada, then at the end of the add the sponsor is the major service provider of broadband, mediacom, go figure

from what i've read, broadband companies simply don't want to spend the money to wire small towns so the state steps in an says we will do it with tax money, by the way, you get no share of the action.

not sure what to think of it, but i like my 3mbps i get from mediacom, i pay $45 permonth, which i feel is steep, but if the government offered 512kbps down/up for $10 a month, i'd take it hands down, because i don't do alot of downloading, just surfing
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: dannybin1742
this is happening here in iowa

you see adds all the time on cable tv about how it will be a waste of money and yada yada yada, then at the end of the add the sponsor is the major service provider of broadband, mediacom, go figure

from what i've read, broadband companies simply don't want to spend the money to wire small towns so the state steps in an says we will do it with tax money, by the way, you get no share of the action.

not sure what to think of it, but i like my 3mbps i get from mediacom, i pay $45 permonth, which i feel is steep, but if the government offered 512kbps down/up for $10 a month, i'd take it hands down, because i don't do alot of downloading, just surfing

try 512 down and 128 up with a monthly transfer caps (10gigs), at 59.99 a month. Expensive but sure beats the heck out of dial up.

I am torn on this issue. On one hand i like free wi-fi, on the other i don't like taxpayers footing the bill for it.